The voice from the “right”: “Less regulation! No! Wait… I mean, more regulation! Oops… Not that type though!”
No, this is not about economics or bailouts. Nothing as fundamental as that… Just another something that has been bugging me. (As if that is something new…) No, this is about the argument “some” make that they are in favor of less regulations. Unfortunately, they lie. They love regulations. The more the merrier.
They talk a good talk. But they don’t walk a good walk. You see, they only want to regulate so that everything fits their behaviour model. “This is me and everybody damn well be like me”. They live bigotry. Why bigotry? Let’s first look at the definition of being a bigot and what bigotry means…
“A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.” Thank you Wikipedia…
It.. p… hum… you know… me off. Let’s just say it gets under my skin. This bigotry. But it is bigotry of self. Intolerance of their own opinions. We are aware of the “standard” bigotry of anti this and anti that, hidden or blatant racism etc. But there is a deeper level of bigotry happening here. These people are actually intolerant of their own ideas. WTF?
Good question. They say they don’t like regulations, but they actually love regulations. They don’t like to regulate the market. (In fairness, they do like it now that the market tanked.) But, as I said, it goes beyond the market. They love regulating behaviour. They are bigots when it comes to social behaviour. They say they don’t want government to interfere? Hmm, I think they might be lying. No, I know they are lying.
You want the right to own a gun? Yep – don’t regulate that buddy. Don’t want no government to regulate that. “Step away from that regulation sir. Put your pen where I can see it.”
You want to chop down that tree? Yep – don’t regulate that. “It’s my yard and my bloody tree. Go hug your own tree.”
You want to join the KKK? Yep – don’t regulate that. “It’s my voice and I can pretty much say what the hell I want to. And join what ever I want.”
You want to form your own little sect down South? Yep – don’t regulate that. “It’s my religion and my sect so don’t dare go there. Really, the kids are very happy here.”
You want to scream “kill him” at your political opponent? Yep – don’t regulate that. “People died to protect my ability and right to shout what the heck I want to.”
It’s a noble principle. And one I agree with. To be able to have freedom I have to accept the freedom of others who do not look, speak, think, act or live like me. My freedom is dependent on that racist being able to say what he wants to say. My freedom is guaranteed by the loony also being able to carry a gun. That nutcase shouting “Kill him” embodies the freedom I enjoy to shout him down. The weirdo who has a few indoctrinated souls in the house of sects secures my right and freedom to walk around my house as an equal to others. The tough guy chopping down the trees makes me chaining myself to those same trees possible. It’s the beauty of being anti-regulation. It ensures freedoms we might not like but freedom that ensures our own freedom.
But… And this is a BIG but… (Single “t”.) That’s not what the American “right” really believes in. They don’t want freedom. They want their life just their way and no other way. So freedom for them but not for others. Only their “freedom”. That’s the bigotry. Sorry people, freedom goes both ways. You have to take the bad to have the good. But you don’t believe in that do you? You want “freedom” that is false and limited. The result is no freedom at all.
Why do I say that?
Well, easy… I’ll just give you one example of your bigotry of self.
Marriage. Gay marriages to be more specific. Look, I am not asking you whether you are gay. Or whether you want a man to be able to marry a man. Or whether you like the idea of a woman marrying another woman. All I am asking you… Why regulate? Why regulate who can marry who? Why regulate marriages but not guns? The one kills and the other doesn’t. I thought you don’t like regulations. Or is that just a double bigot I see? The one who doesn’t like anyone who isn’t as narrow-minded as yourself… And the one who likes to really regulate but who says he doesn’t? I call it snake oil bigotry. You say freedom but give us all chains. You included. Because your limitation of freedom for all means limitations for yourself. Of thought and of deeds. Bang-bang! Double whammy for you. A bigot with a forked tongue. A bigot of self.
Gay marriages. It’s not your call. I don’t like guns. I don’t like racist. I love trees. I don’t like sects. I don’t like people screaming rude insults ta rallies. But I acknowledge your right to carry a gun as part of the freedom that secures the freedoms I cherish. I know you chopping down the trees might be helping in killing this earth slowly, but I know it gives me the chance to plant some more. I despise you screaming stupid hate filled slogans at rallies, but I know it gives me a change to show those fence sitters how ill informed you are and get them on my side. And I know your racial hatred might make me vomit, but I know it is balanced by my right and freedom to shout you down and show to the world how pathetic you are.
You call yourself someone who doesn’t like big government? You call yourself an American who doesn’t like being told what to do? Right. But you can’t have it both ways. You are either for freedom or not. Not selective freedom. Selective freedom and rights are not what make America great. Freedom from interference… Freedom from over regulation…. Freedom for all no matter what… That’s what made America great. Can you handle it? Can you handle freedom? Can you handle being American?
I’m not even American but I sure like what it stands for. Freedom…
And once you taste real freedom… Damn, those pesky little ”freedoms” sure go down well over here. It’s worth it. It’s worth being American. It think so. Do you?
October 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“Why regulate who can marry who?”
It’s already regulated. If you change it now who is to decide where that change stops?
Why not three people marriages? Why not close relatives?
Can’t people in alternative lifestyles get everything they want by having legal documents made up to authorize them to- visit in the hospital – be beneficiaries on insurance policies and pay for their own health insurances?
You do realize that even traditional marriages pay for their health insurance too… right?
Now does that make me a bigot because I disagree with you or does that make you a bigot for disagreeing with me?
October 15, 2008 at 9:39 pm
@mssc54 – Hum, are you pulling the mickey on this? You are saying that there is something wrong with gay marriages? The reason for the same rights? Two. 1) Because the current civil unions do not provide the same benefits as those who are married. For example, if a spouse of a gay couple dies they don’t get the same benefits, such as pension etc, as those of a “married couple”. That means no equal rights. 2) Just by definition people have to say they are in civil union and not married. I want my friends to tell me they are married because that is what they are. Society still turns their eyes up on civil unions. Not equality. Gay couples are not asking for special “no paying health insurance” right. They are just asking for the same and equal rights. Also, WTF on the three people and relatives? Are you saying that gay couples are the same as people practicing something that we know medically will be bad for their kids? Or something that we know can undermine equal rights of respect in marriage? Are you saying that their love is worth less than yours? Are you saying that their marriage is worth less than yours? Are you saying that they should not have the same rights as you and not be able to call it the same thing? Are you saying their marriage is different from yours purely based on their sexual preference? And the regulations… My point exactly. Why have two different regulations for the same thing? It is the same thing and should be covered by the same thing. No difference. If you treat them differently then you say they are different and then it is bigotry. Because you are saying you can have it but not others. Why not others? These were the same answers we had why women shouldn’t have the right to vote. And why black Americans shouldn’t have the same rights. Now gay rights. Gays do not want special rights. Just the same rights enjoyed by anyone else. Gay rights is a stupid idea. It should just be human rights. Those rights and freedoms we all enjoy.
October 16, 2008 at 1:29 am
I am a teacher I am trying to find a picture of all the voters in south africa when the blacks voted for the first time Do you know of a website
thanks
October 16, 2008 at 10:45 am
Hi, AA:
Could you remove my double post on the Message To America thread? For some reason, comments don’t appear when they are submitted like they used to.
Also, I would like to comment here on the why and how of my frequently confrontational stand on the GOP and race:
I think everyone who has been a regular here knows that I will get loud when a poster uses Sothern Strategy codespeak while posting. Also, I respond the same way when the poster is so much in denial about this issue that even in the face of overwhelming evidence prsented, much of which is an open secret.
This is not an issue of digging up the past, nor is it an issue of trying to make it appear that I paint ALL GOPers’ that way. I don’t. If anyone picks through any of my statements, and reads them, they will note that I have never said that John McCain is racist, that applies to Palin as well. What they do and will see is that I am very intolerant of the demogaguery.
This is and will remain an issue of accountability:
While there are many in the GOP that are not racist, and I’ve said so many times, most, to a man, refuse to acknowledge their party’s complicity in stoking racial hatred. This is not new news, and the links I have provided, or even a simple Google as instructed will yield an enormous amount of documentation with respect to GOP conduct and race.
The problem with many GOPers is that they do one of several things rather than acknowledge it:
1. They will relentlessly ignore it (Josh, borrowedladder28), sometimes even while picking up Southern Strategy talking points (“Black Liberation Theology”, which does not exist).
2. They will simply try to talk their way past, revising history as they go
3. They will take up false umbage, as John did, by trying to stretch my commentary to cover all GOPers and then attack
4. They will claim this is a first amendment issue. Which, it is, but it is also poor conduct.
5. They will claim they can’t control the mouthpieces. This may be true, but I have not yet heard the GOPers put any kind of pressure out there over it – at all.
6. They claim that these are “extremists” and “fringe” yet, 7,000,000 of their faithful listen to Limbaugh and his regular renditions of “magic negro” and some 5,000,000 do the same with Hannity, who is by no means immune to this. I’ll simply point out that the many who practice it, and who go to their rallies and yell death threats are products of 30 years of Sothern Strategy aka ‘Angry White Male’ talk.
To end this commentary, I state clearly that after the election, the GOP must begin the work of holding itself accountable for its’ actions and end the conflation of racial hatred and conservatism.
October 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Once again a powerful post, couldn’t agree more. Have you read the “bill of no rights?” I don’t agree with everything, but it’s worth a fraction of a minute to read
http://keelynet.com/humor/norights.htm
Also read the sarcastic “top 16 reasons why gay marriage is wrong”
http://reflectiveequilibrium.blogspot.com/2007/01/gay-marriage-killed-dinosaurs.html
October 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Also, WTF on the three people and relatives?”
What I am saying is if we start redefining what marriage is why should we stop at gay/lesbian?
What if someone says they have enough love for two spouses? What if a person says they are totally committed to their close relative? By your reasoning shouldn’t they, as well, be afforded t he same redefined “privilages”?
Where does it stop?
“Because you are saying you can have it but not others.”
“They” can have it all they want. Just follow the rules like all ther rest of us married people.
As for not having access to pensions… Life insurance policies are still available for monetary gain upon the death of a loved one.
October 16, 2008 at 8:29 pm
@ekk74 – I hope you got the email I send you on this question. Good luck!
@Keven Bennett – Keven, you are always welcome on this blog. I learn alot from your insights. You have been a student of this for much longer than me. Thank you for that and for never giving up.
@thatdudeyouknow – That last one is excellent! I might just put it up here. And the other one… Like you say, I don’t agree with everything, but the intentions I agree with: Work hard and we will love and support you, if you don’t…
@mssc54 – I don’t buy the relatives one. That we know can have serious health impacts (and just look at the Royal family, haha!) But on the more than one spouse. This is a more difficult one. In principle I am not against this. Not my cup of tea, but not something I will discriminate against. The problem here is that we have various religious sects and believers who “force” this one people. Don’t know the answer to it, but I have seen a few people who are in multiple relationships that work. But forced marriages is a serious problem that should be resolved first. And we can start with the religious groups who does this… And I agree with you 100% that gay married couples will have to follow the same rules of marriage like the rest of us. They are not asking for special treatment. On the pensions… You do know that gay couples can not have the same federal benefits if something happens to his/her partner right? We had a classic case of that here in Massachusetts. So, while some of the corporate entities might not discriminate, many do and the government does as well.
October 16, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I appreciate you writing this, as my (gay) daughter and her partner would like to be married to each other, which is not legal in the state where they live.
October 17, 2008 at 12:46 pm
By the way, Josh, have you yet asked anyone in the Black community about ‘Black Liberation Theology”? How about their reaction to the hate rhetoric. Care to comment on John Lewis?
By the way, have you read Pat Buchannon’s book State of Emergency yet?
I would strongly advice you that you really should go to the horse at the source, the Black community, when you try to sell this crap.
See what they say.
After all, it is very likely that they are the ones that will finally put your dogwhistle ignorance out of business on November 4th.
BTW, Josh, lets see who Colin Powell endorses, eh?
Wanna wager?
October 17, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Couldn’t disagree more as for letting people act like animals, at best. Calling Obama a “terrorist” or “kill him” is something that is far away from one’s right to express one self, and it is on the boundary of hate crime.
As a society, we have an unspoken code on how what is acceptable and unacceptable, no matter what the consitution states in it.
We might as well resurrect the founding fathers and ask them if this is the democracy they had pictured when they had founded this country.
Obama must have been the only candidate (local or national) in the U.S. history that had faced such an anger that was sadly started by Sarah “plucked-out-of-the-wood” Palin.
For the life of me i can’t understand how people can be so hateful, and worse how Sarah “i-have-a-screaching-voice” Palin, wouldn’t stop in the middle of her speech to say “we can’t tolerate this”
Comgressman Lewis spoke volumes when he chracterized their campaign the way he did. In fact, i thought he could have gone a little further by calling them “racists”, but to my dismay he didn’t.
The anger clearly comes from their inability to call this man a nigger . . . thus calling him anything close to it in public, and calling him a nigger sub rosa.
Pathetic.
April 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I read Ms. Lady Deborah’s blog (My Brown Eyed View). Today she mentioned your blog as one worth reading; citing that you “handle a variety of topics in a thoughtful manner”.
I read this post and I find it inspired, intelligent and an excellent examination into the duality of bigotry.
The fallacy of bigotry is not the assurance of freedom but the continuance of slavery; the slavery of ideology.
The freedom we currently exercise in this country is limiting because as you say, it must fit another person or group’s view. There can be no respect or honor for others using this philosophy.
True freedom MUST BE truely free, truely respectful and truely honorable.
Will America reach the pinnacle of freedom? I have serious doubts because as long as our ideologies are fractured we remain disjointed.
I hope time proves me wrong.
April 15, 2009 at 8:26 am
This is a VERY interesting topic AA. IMHO, it simply comes down to religion and beliefs. Lets not forget that religious laws are primarily responsible for the legal / constitutional laws in most countries today – irrespective of the specific religion: “Thy shalt not kill….steal….etc etc”. Most (if not, all) religions have very similar beliefs in this regard. It forms the basis of what should be classed as “normal” behaviour – it should be instinctive to follow these laws. Killing does not come naturally / easily to “normal” people, hence it should be accepted as a law….as should “stealing” etc etc – we all have a sense of “guilt” and we would not experience guilt unless we instinctively do not feel bound by these “natural” laws. Of course there is the odd fruitcake who feels no guilt – which is why the laws today remove such people from society – as these people remove the freedomes which these laws are designed to protect.
I am not a religious man, nor am I affiliated to a certain denomination – but I instinctively follow the basic laws as they come naturally.
Let’s look at the gay thing. I have one or two gay friends. But lets not for a second fool ourselves as to the unnatural natuare of such union. Sure, there are as many nice gays as there are nice heteros. That’s not the point though. The point is that physiologically, it is unnatural to have sexual union between same sex couples – albeit that the phallus may be conveniently shaped for man-on-man sexual union. Biological fact proves this is unnatural quite conclusively. But this does not really affect me to be honest – my personal opinionm, that’s all. I am still very good friends with the gay friends I have and anyway, there are more pressing issues.
As for owning guns – well, I live in lawless South Africa, and I can tell you that owning guns has taken away more innocent people’s freedoms than it has provided – so I am all for more regulation in gun ownership, in any country.
But we shouldn’t overcomplicate things. When I was in primary / junior school – those were the best years of my life. What made them good? Innocence and school rules. Rules create freedome for all, not just a select group. We shouldn’t promote deregulation – this simply enables the opportunist “bad guys” the chance to manipulate those that need the freedom most. More rules and regulations make it better for all. Example: I would rather be alive and more regulated, than leave my kids fatherless in a more unregulated world due to my murder by a guy with a gun (a reality in South Africa today. Whic is the lesser of 2 evils to you??
Ultimately, what comes naturally and instintively to the majority should be law – largely indoctrinated by religious belief. Anything else, well…too bad, too sad.